jsus

Or $199* for the Platinum-equivalent... *plus taxes, processing fees , add-ons, etc.

We don't talk about Bruno (failed INTAMIN flume rides).

They took the simplest, laziest way they could to drop "Dragster" from the name, so you can't call it that anymore. After all, "Dragster" hurt someone, but "Top Thrill" didn't (based on the way people colloquially refer to it). Or so that would seem to be their thinking...

TTD 1.0 could only launch 1 train every minute. It rarely even did that, even when it was allegedly fully operational, not down mechanical or weather, which happened extremely frequently. If TT2 could actually reliably slam out trains every 60 seconds, that would go from 1080 to 1200 RPH. Except if the control/mechanical/launch systems are fairly reliable, it might actually stand a very good chance of doing that. You only need to dispatch a train every 67 seconds to meet the theoretical capacity of TTD 1.0 because of the 20 vs. 18 seat trains. Keep in mind that the track switch can shift over as soon as the back of train 1 clears the top of the top hat (as told by a prox at the apex). Looks quite quick according to Zamperla's promotional video, so long as it can do that reliably day after day. As for the actual 3-launch cycle, again keep in mind that unlike TTD 1.0, there's no need to stop at a Christmas Tree and wait for the green lights - because you were really waiting from the catch car to come back and latch onto the train. Instead, you can join the mainline track and just launch immediately. There seems no real reason why they can't beat 1000 riders per hour reliably - something TTD 1.0 never could - so long as they get the system reliability down (TTD 1.0 set a low bar there), and so long as they can get guests seated and restraints checked quickly. So, basically, the crew needs to hustle like they're your pit crew - it's not a lot of time. Start with train 1 in the station, guests checked, train locked/cleared. T=0, train 1 is dispatched, begins to roll forward. Train 2 enters station (better not be as glacially slow as Steel Vengeance), parks. Around here, the track switch activates as train 1 waits; once the switch is locked, train 1 launches. Restraints release, guests exit (no separate unload station here, it seems). Guests board. Ride ops check restraints. Train 2 is locked/cleared. The back of train 1 clears the apex of the top hat, prox switch alerts that the block is now clear. Track switch shifts back for train 2 to leave the station, signaling to the crew that everyone is waiting on them to hit the green button. Train 2 is dispatched. Repeat with train 3 and on until the ride goes down weather/mechanical or for the end of the night.

No, but given the media will be out in the morning before park open, expect to see the announcement posted early in the morning, and to see it on the news in the morning/afternoon.

Well, on the bright side, the student sees your corrections and is implementing them, eventually...

All guests to the Cedar Fair Schlitterbahn parks are allowed to bring coolers into the park, that's nothing new. Has nothing to do with the pass or ticket you use to get in. What is new is that they've implemented size restrictions, and of course they're subject to search at the gate just like your person, bags, etc. https://www.schlitterbahn.com/new-braunfels/waterpark-information

Again, which "screenshot"? The product marketing page was listed at Zamperla's site, the related videos were on Zamperla's YouTube channel. Nothing in looking at it screamed hoax. It all adds up. See the Internet Archive links above. Zamperla just posted it a couple days early, stealing CP's thunder.

It's Zamperla's website. There are videos on Zamperla's YouTube page, since hidden, showing the fabrication of the steel and testing of their "fast switch" mechanism. While those have since been taken down, the internet remembers. It's all too thorough and realistic to be an elaborate hoax. The ride manufacturer may not know the name or any other marketing material about the ride (beyond core specs of course) before the park's official announcement. Besides, they seem to want to distance this from TTD 1.0 so it's reasonable to expect a new name. It's Zamperla.

See the posts above with Spoiler tags...

The 3-launch layout doesn't inherently mean worse capacity than TTD 1.0. Keep in mind what it will be competing against. As for the speed of the launch... Well, this ride will sustain high speeds for longer. That itself will be a nice addition. That final launch from ~100-120 mph will mean spending ~5s at over 100 mph, racing past the grand stands (presuming they stay) and the midway. Sure, TTD 1.0 got you up to speed quickly, but then it quickly bled off speed. Plus, now there's a guaranteed rollback in every box! Even a bonus roll-forward! TTD 1.0 by design could only launch about a train a minute. It took time for the system to recharge the hydraulic accumulators and presumably to cool down a bit. That would put max capacity around 1080 riders per hour. Particularly in later years, for some inexplicable reason, they would wait literal minutes after checking restraints to actually dispatch the trains in the station, for no apparent reason. Further, the controls system was always hyper finicky between the proximity switches and the brake fins sticking. It would not be hard to beat TTD 1.0's capacity with a solid state launch system that requires less recharge time between launches, a reliable control system, and retractable brake fins that actually reliable retract and extend when needed. The retractable brake fins now appear to pivot which should be a step towards more reliable operation there. The old design required the fin to retract and extend level, following guide channels on both ends, offering ample opportunity for them to bind up. The control system will be a couple decades newer, hopefully learning from past issues both on TTD 1.0 and elsewhere. In order to keep the same theoretical hourly capacity, it would need to dispatch 54 trains every hour instead of 60. If that were the target, that means they'd need to dispatch a train every ~67 seconds, vs. the previous strategy of dispatching two trains, in practice, every... um, when they get around to it. But, technically that would have to have been every 2 minutes to dispatch every 60 seconds. Ultimately, that 67 second dispatch time would mean that at t=0s train 1 rolls out of the station through the curve on the fast switch and proceeds to launch forward. Train launches forward at the speed referenced above. Fast switch slides over, locks in place. Train rolls back down the top hat. Launches backward, climbs the new tower. Falls forward, launches a 3rd time, flying through the straightaway in ~5 seconds. Climb the top hat, clear the block. At t=67s, train 2 rolls out of the station. Repeat all day. The only question is how much recharge time, if any, the system needs to recharge after the back of train 1 clears the prox atop the top hat, and before train 2 can be released from the station. Further, let's consider that Adena appears ready to begin new vertical construction imminently (leaked media schedules appear to indicate on Tuesday, announcement day). The only steel at height to be installed is the new vertical tower, the rest is pretty low to the ground and easy to knock out quickly once the final foundation work is done. It's still the previous summer and they look about ready to have construction finished up before Halloweekends even begins. That leaves them plenty of time to get the controls/mechanicals in and potentially begin testing to really dial things in before final prep once it warms back up next spring. We may well see them testing outside park hours before the park closes after Halloweekends 2023. None of that is to say that it's guaranteed the ride will have a reasonable baseline of reliability come May 2024, but I'm saying there's a chance. So long as the systems are fairly reliable, there appears plenty of cycle time in there to meet or beat TTD 1.0's THRC. The only other concern appears to be the system recharge time between cycles. Now, getting guests seated in the trains, secured, trains locked, and cleared for dispatch? It'll be awfully surprising if CP ride ops and guests actually pull that off.

Interestingly, the crane spotted on-site recently appears to be the same model that previously was used to inspect the top hat. It has a rated max hoist height of 374 feet, which is insufficient for the imminent vertical construction per the leaked specs... https://www.liebherr.com/en/usa/products/mobile-and-crawler-cranes/mobile-cranes/liebherr-mobile-cranes/ltm-1300-6.2.html

YouTube video embeds! Did they actually fabricate new track nearly identical to the old? (Edit: andddd they're gone) Archived here from https://www.zamperla.com/top-thrill-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230730151056/zamperla.com/top-thrill-2/

It loads, it's just incredibly slow. As you can imagine, the server is under heavy load right now. Also, obviously it's a 120 mph launch, not clearing the top hat. 120 mph over the top hat would have you coming down at about 240 mph which would destroy the trains and passengers.

Just going to point this out, but based on some on here pointing out the park doesn't have a particularly good relationship with the local media, does anyone really think that the park is doing a better job facilitating relations with KIC? It's a two-way street. Further, as is often pointed out on fan/enthusiast forums, the biggest supporters tend to also be some of the biggest critics. Note that this tends to be done in a constructive manner. Tearing down those who provide constructive criticism is not, well, constructive.

And that's the real question. Legalese terms and conditions that you're expected to click through before completing your transaction may or may not be enforceable; that would be determined by the relevant courts. Of course, we'd all rather not have to find that one out. What about in person ticket sales, will they hand you the printed terms and conditions and make you sign that you accept them before finalizing the transaction? It's not like they're directly presenting you with a liability waiver, giving you a chance to consider it, and specifically making you sign that document itself. How much does that matter? Disclaimers like this serve to discourage people from even pursuing their rights, that's some easy cost savings right there. But it does present at least a small hurdle for those who have been injured in pursuing claims against the parks. Though, sympathetic victims do sway juries. The one thing I do definitively gather from brief internet research is what I noted above - both FUN and SIX disclaim "negligence", but you cannot disclaim "gross negligence or willful misconduct" - which SIX specifically notes. What that does seem to mean is that there's a higher standard required beyond essentially claiming ignorance. As always, I am not your lawyer as I am not a lawyer. I did not even stay at a Holiday Inn Express® last night - it's been several years.

Of note, here's what SIX has to say. In short, their terms also disclaim responsibility for their negligence, but in both cases, it seems "gross negligence or willful misconduct" claims are still valid. That, of course, would be for a court to determine - negligence vs. gross negligence. It is unclear how a court would find in regards to the TTD incident under CFEC's revised terms above. https://www.sixflags.com/six-flags-season-pass-terms-conditions

Last 2 were not present as of August 1, 2022. One wonders what caused them to add those... Death is now mentioned 12 times vs. 0. https://web.archive.org/web/20220805164428/visitkingsisland.com/legal/season-pass-terms

Exactly. Help 'em out, encourage people to come to the park and stop by for some lemonade! But, nope. Crickets...

And for those who don't know about this great organization: https://paytonslemonadestand.org/about-us/

Yep. Ohio winters see many days near or below freezing (32ºF), which is far from ideal for a successful, lasting paint job. Add on top of that needing to have your painters at least on a boom lift if not climbing/rappelling on the structure, and you might want to be conservative with the working temperature range. https://www.defelsko.com/resources/measuring-environmental-conditions

I'd grab a shovel, but I've been advised not to go in the shed...

Which content on his page, and which interactions, lead you to believe that it is a personal account and not a professional one? It's readily evident that the page is focused on his role as the "SPOX" of Kings Island, and he uses it to further that aim. When you're a public representative of a company, and you publicly identify yourself as such, you are inherently representing your employer. Those who officially represent their employer need to be the most careful about presenting a professional image and presenting their employer in a positive light. Everything you say or do publicly in a way that identifies your representation of your employer is in itself a representation of your employer.

Sure, except that he identifies himself as "@KingsIslandPR SPOX" (spokesperson) right up top. He's wearing a park logo shirt with matching name badge in the profile pic. The cover photo is of Kings Island (even clearly spells that out on the screen). The majority of posts are furthering that intent of being a spokesperson for the park. In other words, not a personal account, but rather one that very clearly represents Kings Island and ought to be treated with the professionalism that deserves.

Have you seen something that I haven't? All the track I've seen arriving far - brake and launch - looks just like it did back in 2003, except in white. Brake track is the same 2 row configuration needed to bleed off that ~120 mph coming down from the top hat, so that doesn't tell us anything. Keep in mind that other INTAMIN LSM coasters may only have a single row of brake fins, such as Maverick, but the speeds involved in TTD change matters. The LSMs are not yet mounted to the launch track and there's nothing that clearly screams 1 vs. 2 row configuration there, either. Can't really make any assumptions about an LSM configuration based on that. So, you can't conclusively say that just because InDriveTec has historically only used a single row of LSMs, doesn't mean they would never double up to provide a more powerful launch to match the upgraded braking performance expected of this ride. Plus, is there any reason Indrivetec couldn't offset the LSMs onto one of the two brake fin channels? There's nothing that actually seems to tell us conclusively that this is an LSM conversion, much less the configuration or who might be behind it. All of this is to say that the LSM launch is not official yet (though it's hard to conceive of an alternative as the hydraulic launch is surely history), the track we've seen so far just matches the original track, the brake fin configuration resembles the original configuration, and we're no closer to finding out who is behind the ride (both the engineers behind the project and the "presumed" LSM launch), except that time is ticking and we're getting closer to the (hopefully thorough) announcement on the 1st. https://twitter.com/JayTaylor777/status/1678197958301437953/photo/1